User talk:EliasAlucard

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 21:15, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alucard Tepes links

Can you not add "see also" links to Alucard Tepes to articles which have nothing to do with Castlevania other than a common vampire theme? If there is any connection whatsoever between Anne Rice's novels and this videogame character, you'll need to explain it in a little more depth. —Stormie 01:47, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Pandora's Box link

The Pandora's Box (musical group) link did not belong in Original sin. It belongs under Pandora's Box with the other disambiguation links. -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 23:03, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)

Manx article

I have responded on the article's talk page. Lachatdelarue (talk) 16:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re : My two cents

Hi EliasAlucard,

Looking at both your message, it'll be a good idea for a start to list on Article content disputes of Request for Comments and see how others respond based on all the evidence over that talkpage.

- Mailer Diablo 21:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll do that immediately.

EliasAlucard|Talk 23:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

moving the Manx article

Please discuss page moves before doing it. I spent a lot of time figuring out if the word "cat" was part of a breed name, or if it needed to be used in parentheses as a disambiguation of the word. most cat breeds do not have the word "cat" in them, the Manx included. "(cat)" is used in that article's title to differentiate it from the Manx article. I am going to move the article back to Manx (cat). Check the Manx breed standards to see that they refer to the breed as "Manx" not "Manx cat", as opposed to say, the Norwegian Forest Cat.

Image:DMC1FrontCover.png

Hi there- I noticed that you tagged this image with the delete template. The delete template is only used to mark Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion, and should only be used on corrupt images or non-orphaned duplicate images. If this image is infact a duplicate of another image, please use the more verbose template {{isd|Image:new image name}}. If not, then list it on Wikipedia:Images for deletion in the standard deletion process for images. Cheers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:37, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

How do I list it on images for deletion? What template? It's 600 kb or something, so I uploaded a new version that's 90 kb, much more friendly for the 56k users and wikipedia's servers.

EliasAlucard|Talk 17:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

You tagged it with {{delete}} which is really reserved for articles that are patent nonsense or meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Now that you've uploaded the new image, the correct way to tag it would be {{isd|Image:new image name}}. Cheers, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:14, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Uhh, sorry I think I confused you. When using the isd template, replace "new image name" with the name of the new image that you have uploaded to replace the old image. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Perfect! Sorry to make you jump through the bureaucratic hoops, but it really does make our admin jobs a lot easier when the right templates are used. Thanks again, DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem man. I just didn't get it at first. Glad to help you out.

EliasAlucard|Talk 18:47, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

UserPage Vandalism

Sorry for the lack of reply, I was too busy to reply at that moment, yes he's permblocked shortly I got your notice. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 09:47, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

- 20:36, 5 May 2005 Mailer diablo blocked "User:User:FuckEliasAlucard" with an expiry time of infinite (Personal attack of another user, both edits and username)

Re : Cerberus

Hi EliasAlucard,

OK then, as upon request. I actually thought that once users discuss on the talkpage they are unlikely to revert again, but then I may be wrong. In case I forgot, let me or any other admins know when thing are ressolved so that the page can be unprotected.

- Regards, Mailer Diablo 19:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) - Mailer Diablo 19:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Re Underworld

You write "If you're going to list almost the entire disamb page here, then there's no need of having the disamb page, right?" to which the answer is "wrong". It is sensible that where there is a clear probability that readers of one page are most likely to want a distinct related page - as here where looking at one film will very likely lead to looking at the others with the similar title - then it is sensible to detail those with direct links. Likewise the main disambig page as a separate entry. Please do not revert again, thanks. --Vamp:Willow 17:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

If you look at a number of articles, you'll find it isn't an absolute standard. In this case I noted earlier that there are at least six films by the name 'Underworld' and most only linked elsewhere within the article (no disambig at all); cross-linking at the 'film' level therefore made sense as the internal links (ie meaning of 'Underworld') still remain. We're here to make life easy for readers! Rgds. --Vamp:Willow 17:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

MPEG-4

Thanks. It's encouraging. --Boticario 15:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Firefox market share

I changed things to: "estimates of Firefox's usage share range between 8 to 10% of the overall web browser market, with up to 25% usage share of particular segments of the market". Really, the 25% figures are unrepresentative of the overall browser market, and do not claim to be so. W3Schools, for example, is a site for very Web-savvy developers, who are much more likely to use a standards-compliant browser for development. Similary, Germany is the country with the highest FF usage share in the world, and is not typical. Compare this with countries with relatively low FF penetration such as the U.S. and China, and this drags the figures back down. -- The Anome 09:23, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

All right, that's cool and probably more accurate. It's just that it feels like the Firefox usage share has been 10% since the release of Firefox 1.0 and I'm sure that it has to be higher now.

EliasAlucard|Talk 11:27, 30 May, 2005 (UTC)

Katie Holmes picture

I reverted back her picture to a resized version. I have never heard that we need to use a smaller size in order to save the bandwidth of wikipedia. I don't think we should adopt this kind of practice arbitrarily. Besides, I don't think using a small version makes a considerable difference. Say if every reader is unsatisfied with a small version and goes to a big one by clicking it, we don't save any but rather waste much. Maybe I am missing something, so please let me know more about this. -- Taku 10:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

You make a very valid point. But I've seen pictures that are in full size, and stuff like that. This is not good for Wikipedia. Their servers are overloaded as it is. Whilst it may be so that many users will click on the picture to enlargen it, in order to see it in full size, not everyone will. This will save a lot of bandwidth for Wikipedia. I don't know how it is for you, but for me, Wikipedia is painfully slow, yet I have a very fast broadband connection. More often than not, the thumb size is a more than enough of a good general size for pictures.

EliasAlucard|Talk 12:52, 10 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

No, no, I do see your motive, but I need numbers about saving and consensus among people; for example, wikipedia is indeed slow to me too but I am not convinced that using a small version mitigate this problem. For another, since I don't think this practice has been adopted widely, if not me, someone in the future would certainly enlarge the picture, like other articles. In sum, we need the numbers and the consensus to apply this kind of practice. -- Taku 22:42, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dolby vs DTS Article

I've replied to your question in the discussion section of the article. --Zacha. 15:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Condemnant qui non intellegent

Hi, I wonder about the grammar of this phrase (I do think it is a phrase rather than a proverb; but I guess it could be in either list, really). "intelligent" is future tense, which does not make much sense here; the present tense should be "intelligunt". But as a matter of fact, "intelligent", though probably wrong, is the only version Google can find for me. Do you happen to know the source of the phrase? Regards, T.a.k. 18:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Nice anagram, Mr Alucard ;-)

Hi there. To be honest with you, I'm no Latin expert. I don't know the language, but I've studied French years ago, which is derived from Latin, but not the same language. Just Google for the sentence, and you'll find it. It's found a little bit everywhere on 'Latin quotes' sites. Hope that helped you out. And thanks for the P.S. :) Now I got to lift some weights (weight training). Later.

EliasAlucard|Talk 21:11, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sports! It's been a while... The thirtysome quotes I googled appear to more or less copy from each other. I guess I'll just be brave, correct the grammar, and start a brand new tradition. O.K. with you? T.a.k. 20:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm back :) Did some Biceps training. Well, I'm all for it if it's wrong as it is now, but I got a suggestion before you do it: check the Latin version of Wikipedia (http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_prima). I'm sure someone there knows this better than both of us. By the way, do you have any notable skills in Latin, or are you just guessing? Not to offend you or anything, just curious.

EliasAlucard|Talk 22:27, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. <pighead mode> I am a Latin teacher, and my Latin is, in all modesty, certainly above average. In fact, I tend to avoid the Latin Wikipedia for its poor Latin... </pighead mode> ;-). Seriously, I do know a bit about Latin grammar. Not that it's made me a rich and famous person... T.a.k. 20:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh shit! :) Well then, I'm not going to ask for proof or anything, I'll just take your word for it. By the way, thanks for the compliment, made me feel "down to earth" ;) One thing though, could you perhaps edit more on the Latin Wikipedia? I'd personally love to start reading it, and look up every word possible, just to learn, but so far, I've avoided doing so because as you put: its poor Latin. Not that I'm any expert and able to distinguish what's good Latin, and what is not, but I suspected it from the beginning. Would be cool if you could bring some colleagues too so they could help you out. I think Latin is an awesome language, and needs to be preserved. Wikipedia is a good way of doing just that. By the way, the Castlevania hero Alucard in the video game Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is where I got the anagram from. Pretty much a badass fictional character.

EliasAlucard|Talk 23:04, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Most of the instances I can find on Google have it as condemnant quod non intelligunt (they condemn because they do not understand; alternatively, and this is just my GCSE Latin, they condemn what they do not understand); 2) Could it not be a subjunctive? smoddy 21:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just found that version on Google... I added it in the proverbs C section. It sounds better (the English part), but I don't know if the Latin is accurate. Like I said, I'm no expert.

EliasAlucard|Talk 23:55, 14 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

From further looking, that would appear to be completely correct. However, I am pretty much sure that your original phrase could be rendered "they condemn so that they might not understand", which, while interesting, seems less likely... Cheers, smoddy 22:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, subjunctive would be intelligant. Yup, the phrase "quod non intelligunt" makes perfect sense and is most likely the correct version. Wish I could find the source... Because/what is only a matter of taste; I don't think many Romans could have been bothered to tell the difference. @Alucard: Thanks for the links; things like that always help me vis a vis my students to pretend I actually know what they are talking about ;-) T.a.k. 22:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to this list instead. Check it up and let me know what you think. This is the source (http://oaks.nvg.org/ys2ra11.html#ltc) I used. Don't know if it's reliable, but it seems okay with me. Any objections?

EliasAlucard|Talk 00:49, 15 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

From the perspective of a humble Latin student, I would have to agree with T.a.k. (BTW, is Intellige(u)nt 3rd or 4th declension? I'm travelling right now and unfortunately, don't have my Latin dictionary with me). Intelligent (if it was 3rd or 4th declension) would be future, and "intelligunt" would be present. Flcelloguy Missing image
Bass_clef2.gif
Cello today?

Give me a note! Missing image
Eighth_note2.gif
d.c. al fine?

^{Desk 01:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:EliasAlucard"